Interest in enhancing verify.py

All I can say about that specific [Uncollected Objects ] gramplet is, that the german translation is bad and probably made by a non-technican by using a dictionary. It’s more or less missing the real meaning of the english expressions. But it’s hard to translate anyway as like me the users of that Gramplet are used to the english words in that section of technology.

For example Referrer is the german translation for “Referer” - yes but it is solely used for talking about HTTP Referers - speaking of Garbage Collectors in Programming Languages the meaning of “referer” could also be described as “user” or “occupier” in english which would lead to another - probably better understandable - expression in german like “Nutzer” or “Verwender” because its about which other object in the memory is still using (as in has a reference to) this object.

And “Not collected Objects” means objects still in the memory the garbage collector was not able to collect… Its translation is misleading because it would translate back into english like not recorded or not captured objects. But uncollected objects are more like not freed/released - still resident - objects - so a better translation would be “freigegebene” instead of “erfasste” which would mean freed…

I guess i should or could propose that changes in Gramps/Program — German @ Hosted Weblate: Bulgaria ?

1 Like

Thank you.

I fixed the remaining garbage collection issues and merged your PR. Please give it a quick test and let me know if there are any problems.

Thank you @Nick-Hall!
I pulled your changes and did a small test-run with one of my trees and a tree containing 600k people.
It looks good!

2 Likes

@OlliL ,

First thanks for the addition Verification Rules for the 5.2 release.

When updating the wiki for this features, I expanded the Verification Rule bullet list to be more complete.

To build the list, I searched the gramps/plugins/tool/verify.py file.

In the original verify.py, every rule response message was immediately preceded by the following comment line:

"""return the rule's error message"""

This made it easy to search for the exact text of each dialog row.

However, your new rules lack this standard comment line. Could you add those comments?

I dont know why I did not use this tool earlier - this is amazing tool! I have two small questions (or maybe propositions):

  1. I see the option “Minimum age to marry” is located in the General tab. I would say, this option is individual for women and men. For nowadays it doesn’t matter I think. But earlier 100 years ago girls could marry at 16 years, and even at 14 years. But for men I would set 18 years.
  2. Did you thing about adding of “Exclude”/“Clear excludes” feature? For exampe I set max age 100 years. I know that one person in my DB has 106 years, but I dont want make max age too big because 106 - is only one case, or 2-3, but not dozens, not hundrad. And a lot of checks will have such situations, which are not often. It would be great mark them and exclude for future verifyings. What do you think? Does it make sence?

One more feature which could help to users: it would be great to have Fix the Group buttons like this (where this is possible):

Looks like a small issue about data comparing.

Marriage date: estimated before 1898-01-12
Birth date: estimated before 1894-10-26
Why do I have the notification “Marriage before birth”?

Before running this tool, you would find it useful to temporarily change the date span/range limiting preferences. Reduce “about”, “before” and “after” to very small values.

1 Like